New Delhi: India’s lab-grown diamond industry is facing challenges such as significant fall in prices, eroding consumer interest and competition from imports, think tank Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) said Sunday, adding said that though India faces the issue of production overcapacity, it continues to import in large amounts and this issue needs deeper investigation.
To address these challenges, the government needs to take certain steps such as setting clear and consistent rules to standardize quality, certification, and market practices; issuing a Quality Control Order to check quality of imports; and investment in research and development to improve production processes, reduce costs, and enhance the quality of lab-grown diamonds.
As per the report, India’s lab-grown diamond industry is facing a major challenge, with prices falling by 65% in the past year to Rs 20,000 per carat from Rs 60,000 due to local overproduction and oversupply from abroad, which points to problems like overproduction, high imports, and lack of regulation. The number of units producing lab-grown diamonds in India has increased to 10,000 units, leading to over supply and tougher competition.
The industry lacks clear regulations checking such practices, making it hard to ensure quality. Lack of proper certification, and low trust market operations could slow down the industry’s growth, according to GTRI founder Ajay Srivastava.
He added that 98% of India’s imports of rough lab-grown diamonds come from Hong Kong (63.7% or $728.2 million) and the UAE (28.5% or $326 million).
In FY24, India imported rough lab-grown diamonds worth $1.14 billion and exported cut and polished ones worth $1.3 billion.
Natural diamonds cost around Rs 3.5 lakh per carat and this price drop is making it difficult for manufacturers to repay loans taken for purchasing lab-grown diamond making machines, putting them under financial strain, GTRI said.
The American Gem Trade Association announced that, starting at Tucson next year, exhibitors will not be allowed to sell lab-grown diamonds or colored gemstones at the AGTA GemFair.
National Jeweler received a news release on AGTA’s decision via email Wednesday morning. The release also was posted on the AGTA website, though it had been removed by Wednesday evening.
AGTA CEO John W. Ford Sr. said the news release was “pulled by error,” and would be reposted today.
According to the release, AGTA’s new rule bans the display of loose gemstones or jewelry “comprising non-natural gemstones, ones that are man-made, synthetic, or lab grown.”
AGTA said its dealers can still sell lab-grown gems if they are disclosed, but only natural gems can be made available for purchase at GemFair.
The association said it enacted the ban to “thwart potential confusion,” confusion it sees happening in the lab-grown diamond industry and fears will affect the colored gemstone industry, even though lab-grown colored stones have been around for more than a century.
When asked what led to the belief that confusion was occurring, or could occur, in the colored gemstone market, Ford said in an email to National Jeweler, “Look no further than the chaos created by synthetics in the diamond industry … Our action is also in response to considerable concerns voiced by AGTA membership in relation to the adverse effects that synthetics could also potentially cause in the colored gemstone industry.”
While the AGTA’s decision has made headlines, it does not seem poised to have a big impact on AGTA GemFair exhibitors, few of whom sell lab-grown gemstones anyway.
In his email, Ford said out of the 260 exhibitors of loose or set gemstones at the 2024 AGTA GemFair Tucson, only two list that they sell synthetic gemstones in the AGTA Source Directory.
“Since sending out over (260) 2025 AGTA GemFair Tucson renewals, we’ve had an overwhelmingly positive response from the vast majority of our exhibitors, greatly outweighing any negative responses,” he said.
Related stories will be right here …
In its news release, AGTA also noted that lab-grown gemstones lack the value inherent to natural gemstones, which are rare and sometimes inimitable.
“AGTA felt that it needed to be crystal clear to buyers that when they attend an AGTA show, they know that they are only shopping mined natural gems from the earth,” said Kimberly Collins, AGTA board president and owner of Kimberly Collins Colored Gems.
“AGTA dealers pride themselves in sourcing superior gems that are rare, beautiful, and natural.”
AGTA also notes that “synthetic gems are not minerals.”
The association said it recognizes two definitions of the word “mineral”—that of the British Geological Survey, defining a mineral as “a naturally occurring substance with distinctive chemical and physical properties, composition, and atomic structure” and that of the U.S. Geological Survey, which defines a mineral as a “naturally occurring inorganic element or compound having an orderly internal structure and characteristic chemical composition, crystal form, and physical properties.”
“The definitions are essentially the same, but the keyword in both that is important is use of the word ‘natural,’” said AGTA board member John Bradshaw.
“It’s important to indicate that synthetic gems are not considered minerals, because minerals are natural, and synthetics are not.”
As of 2021 the laboratory-grown diamond trade market was estimated to be worth around $1.9 billion, according to a report by Frost & Sullivan.
This market is expected to grow significantly in the coming years, with some estimates suggesting that it could reach a value of over $15 billion by 2035.
laboratory-grown diamond trade has been growing steadily in recent years. There are several factors driving this growth.
Price: Laboratory-grown diamonds are typically less expensive than natural diamonds, which makes them an attractive option for consumers who are looking for high-quality jewelry at a more affordable price.
Ethical concerns: Some consumers are hesitant to purchase natural diamonds due to concerns about ethical issues such as conflict diamonds. Laboratory-grown diamonds are considered to be a more ethical alternative, as they are produced in a controlled environment and do not have the same potential ethical issues as natural diamonds.
Environmental concerns: The process of mining natural diamonds can have a significant environmental impact. Laboratory-grown diamonds are generally considered to be more environmentally friendly, as they do not require mining.
Advancements in technology: The technology used to produce laboratory-grown diamonds has improved significantly in recent years, making it easier and more cost-effective to produce high-quality diamonds. All of these factors have contributed to the growth of the laboratory-grown diamond trade, and it is expected to continue to grow in the coming years.
The answer is not yet: It is worth noting that natural diamonds still hold a significant share of the diamond market, and it remains to be seen how much of an impact laboratory-grown diamonds will have on the industry as a whole over the next decade.
Laboratory grown rough diamond type 2A carbon crystal.
The main difference between a natural mined diamond and a laboratory grown diamond is their origin. Natural diamonds are formed deep within the Earth’s mantle under extreme heat and pressure over millions of years, while laboratory grown diamonds are created in a controlled environment in a laboratory setting. Some other differences between natural mined diamonds and laboratory grown diamonds include:
Cost: Laboratory grown diamonds are generally less expensive than natural mined diamonds, as they don’t require expensive mining and extraction processes.
Clarity: Laboratory grown diamonds are generally more consistent in terms of their clarity, as they are grown under controlled conditions. Natural mined diamonds can have inclusions or blemishes, which can affect their clarity and value.
Size and Colour: Laboratory grown diamonds can be grown to larger sizes and in a wider range of colours, which may not be as easily available in natural mined diamonds.
Environmental impact: The environmental impact of laboratory grown diamonds is generally considered to be lower than that of natural mined diamonds, as mining can have a significant impact on the environment.
Rarity and Value: Natural mined diamonds are still considered more rare and valuable than laboratory grown diamonds, due to their long history and cultural significance. Ultimately, whether someone chooses a natural mined diamond or a laboratory grown diamond may depend on their personal preferences and priorities, such as environmental concerns, budget, or the desire for a natural, unique stone.
It is worth noting that both natural mined diamonds and laboratory grown diamonds are chemically and physically identical, and both can be certified and graded by independent gemmological laboratories based on the same criteria.
Martin Rapaport recently released an incendiary memo to the diamond and jewelry industry calling on them to stop doing business in lab-grown diamonds (LGD), which he characterized as “synthetic” and “fraudulent.”
He also claimed those selling LGD were “operating dishonestly and unethically” and trading short-term opportunities at the expense of those that are “certain and sustainable.”
Rapaport is the ultimate industry insider, and there’s no question about which side his bread is buttered on. As chairman of The Rapaport Group, his company is a portal for information about and services to the diamond industry, including the Rapaport Price List, which it claims is the industry’s primary source for diamond price and market information, and an online diamond trading network, RapNet.
In a request for comment, a Rapaport representative shared the memo but added no additional comment.
Rapaport wrote:
“The greatest challenge facing the diamond trade is greed. Our trade is willfully destroying the underlying value of diamonds as a store of value through the marketing, promotion and sale of synthetic diamonds as a replacement for natural diamonds”
And he added, “Essentially, the diamond industry is trading short-term, unsustainable profits for the reputation of diamonds as a store of value.”
Then he went further, “Many – if not most – in our trade are operating dishonestly and unethically by failing to make full disclosure about the value retention of synthetic diamonds.”
And his memo concluded, “The Rapaport Group does not facilitate the sale of synthetic diamonds in any way. We believe they are a fraudulent product because of how they are sold. They are also a threat to the fundamental message of diamonds.”
This memo followed a submission to the Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC) in December 2021, where he pointed to Zales, James Allen, Jared, Diamond Direct (all Signet brands) and Brilliant Earth as not providing full disclosure about the LGD jewelry they sell. “Consumer expectations are not being managed honestly by unethical retailers,” he claimed.
According to lawyer Milton Springut, partner at Moses Singer, Rapaport’s disparaging and potentially injurious claims against lab-grown diamonds and the parties who do business in them probably don’t violate federal or state liability laws.
But Rapaport’s words are ill-chosen, and his claims are without merit, according to experts I spoke with.
Synthesized But No Less Real Lab-grown diamonds may be synthetic, as in made by man, but they are just as “real” as a natural diamond, as defined by the FTC. A diamond, no matter its origin is “a mineral consisting essentially of pure carbon crystallized in the isometric system. It is found in many colors. Its hardness is 10; its specific gravity is approximately 3.52; and it has a refractive index of 2.42.”
While lab-growns that meet the above criteria can be labeled as a “diamond,” the FTC also ruled that their man-made origin must be clearly disclosed.
So it requires marketers must precede the word “diamond” with “equal conspicuousness” such words as “‘laboratory-grown,’ ‘laboratory-created,’ ‘[manufacturer name]-created,’ or some other word or phrase of like meaning, so as to disclose clearly the nature of the product and the fact it is not a mined gemstone.”
It took a little while for some involved to find their footing under the new FTC guidelines, but now it seems all companies and retailers trading in lab growns have gotten on board and clearly, responsibly and honestly disclose the man-made, laboratory-grown origins of their stones.
That’s why Rapaport’s word choice of “synthetic” is over the line, implying that lab-grown diamonds are “simulants,” on the order of CZs or moissanite that may have a diamond-look, but are distinctly different in their physical properties and chemical composition.
“It’s an intentionally pejorative term because he is desperately trying to hold on to the tradition of mined diamonds,” said Marty Hurwitz, founder of market-research firm MVI Marketing LLC (THE MVEye) that specializes in the gem, jewelry and watch industries since 1987.
“One could argue using the term ‘synthetic’ may cause harm to lab-grown businesses, but it is clear that people who use the word are using it in a denigrating fashion,” he continued.
Hurwitz also notes the Gemological Institute of America (GIA), a non-profit educational and research organization that is the industry’s primary source for grading stones, doesn’t use the term “synthetic” any longer. It provided a limited grading program for lab-grown diamonds since 2007, then expanded and elevated it in 2020 as LGDs gained more industry and consumer acceptance.
GIA’s chief executive Susan Jacques described its decision as the natural evolution of the diamond market.
“We are responding to consumer demand,” she stated. “We want to make sure that consumers are educated, that we can protect their trust in the gem and jewelry industry as well as the products they are buying. As consumers adopt this new category, it’s important that we evolve with the new consumer.”
Value Is In The Meaning Rapaport’s rage against lab-grown diamonds seems to hinge on the fact that having an equivalent competing product in the market is causing the price of mined diamonds to fall. That’s the natural economic law of supply and demand.
And given that the prices of lab-grown diamonds are steadily falling, it is putting downward pricing pressure on mined diamonds too, reports diamond industry analyst Edahn Golan, though mined diamonds are experiencing a more moderate decline.
Then Rapaport goes one step further to claim that a mined diamond is a repository or “store of value” and that retaining, even increasing, its monetary value over time is part of the promise with purchase. This is patently false, both Hurwitz and Golan affirm.
“There is limited to no investment value in diamonds,” Hurwitz said. “Some categories of mined diamonds are investment grade and go up in value, but most diamonds depreciate faster than a car leaving the showroom. The average consumer has been fed a marketing myth, the greatest marketing story ever told. Most consumers never find out the truth because they don’t resell their diamonds.”
Golan added that jewelers have perpetuated the myth by offering a trade-in, so a purchaser of a $2,000 diamond ring can get that back in credit if they return to purchase a bigger, more expensive stone.
“I’m hearing the big trend in America now is for people who want to upgrade their engagement ring decide to keep their original stone and have it made into something else, like a pendant,” he said.
People hold onto their stone because of its sentimental, symbolic value, which is where the actual value lies, as Warren Buffett said, “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.”
DeBeers tried to equate the two with its rule that a man should pay two-to-three months’ salary on an engagement ring. But ironically, that’s turned back on the industry because, with a lab grown, he can buy a bigger, more impressive stone that speaks even louder of his love for her when he pops the question.
Nothing Unethical, Fraudulent Or Dishonest Selling Lab Growns Rapaport goes too far when he suggests that there is something unethical, fraudulent or dishonest in selling lab-grown diamonds.
“The idea that diamonds are a store of value is a fundamental component of diamond demand. Consumers are being misled by retailers who sell man-made diamonds without full disclosure. The default assumption among consumers is that man-made diamonds will appreciate over time, even though the opposite is true,” he stated in his RJC filing.
One could argue that what is unethical, fraudulent and dishonest is suggesting that a mined diamond retains, even grows in monetary value.
“Rapaport is thinking like a diamond trader. Trading prices move up and down with the market. When they go up, it’s good; when they go down, it’s bad,” Golan said, noting that the increasing availability and consumer demand for lab growns is moving the needle for mined diamonds in the wrong direction.
Unlike traders, retailers think about cash flow, margins and turns. And this is where lab-grown diamonds have the edge.
“Jewelry stores hold loose diamonds on hand and the margins on loose natural diamonds is around 36%, while the margin for LGD was 54% at the end of December. And if it takes a retailer a year to sell a mined stone, but it only averages seven months to sell a lab-grown, a retailer will make more money at the end of the year,” Golan explained.
Hurwitz rhetorically asks, “Should we tell the consumers who are walking into our stores asking for lab-growns to go away? Should we say, ‘We don’t want to sell you this product that means incredibly high margins and profits for us and incredibly high value to you?’”
Retailers that trade in lab-growns are transparent and honest about the origin of their stones. The FTC requires it. There is nothing unethical, fraudulent or dishonest for a retailer to sell a customer what they want at the price they want to pay and to make money in the process.
“Half the diamonds are sold in the United States, and 50% of the business in the United States is bridal. The natural diamond industry is losing a chunk of that ‘Holy Grail’ to lab growns. The industry has to adapt to the changing world. It’s a combination of a cultural and business change that are driving each other,” Golan shared.
Can’t Turn Back The Clock “Rapaport has a tremendous self-interest in seeing the mined diamond business continue to thrive,” observed Hurwitz. “He’s trying to ensure that things never change. He wants to hold onto the tradition, but that’s futile.”
While Rapaport may be trying to valiantly to save the mined diamond industry, he may be doing more harm than good.
“The good news for the lab-grown diamond industry is that he appears to be going off the rails in his attacks, and as a result, fewer and fewer people are listening to him,” Hurwitz said.
“There is a consumer revolution happening because of lab-grown diamonds. As an industry, we must embrace the change and give consumers a choice.” he continued.
“Rapaport just wants to tell everybody that this product is good and that is bad. But the only voice that matters is the consumer. And the consumer is organically and very virally embracing this new product.”
Pandora, the world’s biggest jeweller, is launching a collection using exclusively lab-made diamonds in the US and Canada as part of the company’s strategy to eliminate mined gems and create more affordable products with less associated emissions.
The Danish company, which plans to make its operations carbon neutral within three years, said the collection is the first one crafted with 100% recycled silver and gold.
SIGN UP FOR THE SUPPLIERS DIGEST
“This brings greenhouse gas emissions of the collection’s entry product – a silver ring with a 0.15 carat lab-created diamond ($300) – down to 2.7 kg CO2e, which is equal to the average emissions of a t-shirt,” Pandora said.
The flagship product, a one carat lab-created diamond set in a 14 carat solid gold ring and sold for about $1,950, has a footprint of 10.4kg CO2e, which is less than the average emissions of a pair of jeans.
The jeweller, best known for its charm bracelets, has committed to craft all its pieces from recycled silver and gold by 2025.
Pandora launched its first Pandora Brilliance collection using only man-made diamonds in the UK last year.
“Lab-created diamonds are just as beautiful as mined diamonds, but available to more people and with lower carbon emissions,” chief executive officer Alexander Lacik said in the statement.
World’s top jewellery maker Pandora ditches mined diamonds The Danish company, best known for its charm bracelets, already doesn’t include mined diamonds in most of its pieces. (Image courtesy of Pandora.) While producing diamonds is energy-intensive, Pandora said its gems would be made using only renewable energy.
Since 2011, when prices peaked thanks to China’s younger shoppers, diamonds have faltered. Lab-grown stones, initially priced confusingly close to the real thing, posed a challenge.
Top diamond makers reacted to the new kind of diamonds, widely embraced by young consumers as they look identical to mined stones, by launching a joint marketing campaign.
Under the motto “Real is Rare”, the Natural Diamond Council (formerly the Diamond Producers Association), which groups the world’s leading diamond companies, launched a series of film-like spots targeting millennials — those born between 1981 and 1996.
Failing that, they begun selling man-made diamonds themselves. Anglo American’s De Beers created the Lightbox brand to sell alternative diamonds for a fraction of the price of the mined ones.
Ethical concerns Despite the establishment of the Kimberley Process in 2003, aimed at removing conflict diamonds from the supply chain, experts say trafficking of precious rocks is still ongoing.
Miners and world famous jewellers including Tiffany & Co, have come up with innovative ways of certifying their stones as ethically mined, mostly based in blockchain technology.
In 2020, the New York-based company began providing customers with details of newly sourced, individually registered diamonds that trace a stone’s path all the way back to the mine.
When De Beers first introduced its Lightbox lab-grown jewelry brand in 2018, the diamond world sat up and took notice. The mining giant had long been outspoken about its belief that synthetic stones were neither special nor unique. And despite having entered the field itself, the company still holds by that sentiment. Since first making waves throughout the trade, it has done its utmost to create a clear distinction between the two types of stones, touting natural diamonds as a higher-value, engagement-worthy offering, and positioning Lightbox’s products in what brand CEO Steve Coe delineates as “the accessibly priced fashion-jewelry space.”
But a look at the market four years on suggests that this message may have been lost in translation.
The opening gambit
After the initial shock of the Lightbox announcement wore off, the general theory in the natural-diamond industry was that the brand was De Beers’ strategy for negating the perceived threat of lab-grown. Understood but unspoken in its marketing was that Lightbox aimed to create an alternative stream for synthetics — one that wasn’t bridal and wasn’t in that price range.
“I think there was a great opportunity for lab-grown diamonds that De Beers didn’t want to pass up,” says Dick Garard, president of the International Grown Diamond Association (IGDA). “They thought they had a marketing strategy there…. They came out with a pricing structure, and the intent was to drive the pricing down to that point. I think their overall intent was to help augment their mined-diamond business.”
Jewelry consultant Pam Danziger also took Lightbox’s debut as a warning shot to synthetics — a way of reframing them as a lesser alternative to natural stones, not as a luxury product.
“De Beers tried to tell the consumer what lab-grown diamonds were for,” she says. “They said it’s for fashion, not for anything serious. It was like they were trying to exert market control and keep lab-grown in a separate lane.”
Of course, a company as big and well-known as De Beers can’t rock the boat without creating some far-reaching ripples, and it did — just not necessarily the ones it may have been expecting.
Stamp of approval?
If De Beers’ subliminal strategy was to create an invisible barrier around the space where lab-grown was supposed to reside, the plan did not unfold as it was meant to. Rather than decreasing interest in synthetic diamonds as a viable alternative to natural, the company’s move into the space solidified lab-grown’s legitimacy among trade members and consumers alike.
“[De Beers] kind of heightened the awareness and desire for lab-grown diamonds,” explains Adrienne Fay, vice president of Warren Buffett-owned jeweler Borsheims. “Maybe it was an unintended consequence, rather than a misstep, that by trying to point out that this is a product inferior to mined diamonds, it sort of highlighted the fact that it’s actually a product very similar to mined diamonds, and that there is a demand for it.”
The De Beers name on lab-grown jewelry became the ultimate stamp of approval for customers, agrees Eileen Hopman, owner of Hopman Jewelers in Elkhart, Indiana. Whenever she saw doubt from shoppers about the validity of synthetics, she says, she would whisper the magic words: “Even De Beers is selling lab-grown.” From there, the purchase was usually a fait accompli.
Traders, too, have taken the De Beers move as an endorsement, reports Mark Clodius, owner of Clodius & Co. Jewelers in Rockford, Illinois.
“It certainly prompted overall approval throughout the industry, and quite dramatically,” he says. “It achieved so much publicity that it was hard for jewelers to ignore it.”
“What De Beers has…been successful at is having price consistency among diamond growers.”
Adrienne Fay Vice President, Borsheims
The bridal boom
Fay, Hopman and Clodius are among the jewelers that were already carrying lab-grown diamonds before the launch of Lightbox. From the brand’s debut in 2018 until a year later, the retailers saw a big jump in growth, with sales doubling or better every year after that.
Consumer surveys appear to support this trend. The number of bridal shoppers who feel a natural diamond is important has gone down, according to a 2021 survey from wedding website The Knot. Nearly one quarter of all engagement ring purchases last year featured a man-made center stone, it found — an increase of 11% over two years. Another study, this one by jewelry insurance business Brite & Co., confirms that lab-grown is gaining on natural when it comes to bridal appeal: The market share of synthetic-diamond engagement rings grew to more than 28% in 2021 from 19% the year before, while average spending rose 9%, not far behind the 12% increase that mined stones enjoyed.
Despite the data, however, De Beers insists it will not hop on the lab-grown engagement train and says it still sees synthetics functioning most promisingly in fashion. The lower price point of that segment “opens up a very exciting opportunity for a much higher level of repeat purchases,” says Coe. “There are some retailers out there that are pushing the [engagement] avenue very strongly…but we see the big opportunity for lab-grown elsewhere.”
Still, by setting a bar and sticking to it, Lightbox might be missing out. The bulk of lab-grown sales at Borsheims are for bridal, and synthetics make up approximately 60% of engagement ring purchases at Clodius. Hopman, who first began carrying them as an alternative to natural stones, says they’ve become her bread and butter, making up 90% of all engagement center stones she sells. The lab-created gems have become so popular with her buyers that she has stopped carrying natural diamonds unless they’re preset in a piece she really likes.
“Like De Beers, we were initially promoting them more for fashion jewelry versus engagement rings,” she explains. “But more people came in and wanted bigger diamonds, and as the prices for mined diamonds began to increase, they were stuck settling for either a smaller diamond or a lesser-quality stone. And we began showing them the lab-grown. Once we let them know the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had sanctioned them as real diamonds, they took off.”
“There are some retailers out there that are pushing the [engagement] avenue very strongly…but we see the big opportunity elsewhere.”
Steve Coe CEO, Lightbox
The price is right
One thing De Beers has managed to do, Fay believes, is contain the price of lab-grown, though not at the $800-per-carat level that Lightbox charges. Not even at the $1,500-per-carat price tag of its Finest line, which includes synthetic stones with a higher color range of D to F.
“De Beers, because they’re such a behemoth, they’re going to have an impact,” asserts Fay. “I think what De Beers has managed to disrupt, and been successful at, is having price consistency among lab-grown diamond growers.”
The figures seem to prove her right. Within six months of Lightbox’s arrival on the scene, the average discount for a 1-carat lab-grown diamond grew to 42% of the equivalent natural stone — up from 29% in January 2018, just before the De Beers brand launched, according to data that Reuters cited from industry analyst Paul Zimnisky. Meanwhile, wholesale prices for synthetics fell 13.3% from 2019 to 2020, according to online marketplace Virtual Diamond Boutique.
Clodius and Hopman are currently selling lab-grown engagement rings at approximately 50% to 70% of their natural counterparts’ prices, depending on the cut and carat weight of the stone, and the price they pay their lab-grown suppliers has dropped since 2018. However, they’re a bit more hesitant to attribute the latter development to Lightbox. So is Zimnisky.
“I believe it’s the overall fundamentals of the market that are pressuring lab-grown diamond prices — particularly the supply side of the equation — not Lightbox per se,” Zimnisky says. “Perhaps the Lightbox launch a few years back has accelerated this trend, but when you really look at the supply fundamentals of the space, how many new producers have entered the space in the recent past, I think it’s more production growth and production improvements that have accelerated supply [and] most heavily weighed on prices.”
“It was like [De Beers was] trying to exert market control and keep lab-grown in a separate lane.”
Pam Danziger Jewelry consultant
Down the line
What does the future hold for lab-grown, and will De Beers play a role in how it gets there? The answer depends on whom you ask.
“Will lab-grown diamonds fall into fashion? Yes,” says the IGDA’s Garard. “But will they also still fall into bridal and high-end? Absolutely. And supply is too tight to meet demand currently, so to have a carat sell for $800? I think that’s a bit low.”
Zimnisky disagrees: “Ultimately, I think the Lightbox price point is the right level for the lab-grown diamond product in general. Sometimes I think it’s too low, and sometimes I feel that it’s too high, so that’s probably a sign that it’s just about right — for now, at least. However…in five years’ time, this price point will probably seem too high. I think we’ll see $500 per carat or less in 10 years’ time. Longer-term, I think the price point is what will ultimately relegate the product to more ‘fashion’-oriented — more so than marketing efforts.”
The International Gemological Institute (IGI) has graded a 27-carat lab-grown stone that it claims is the world’s largest polished synthetic diamond.
Indian lab-grown company Greenlab created the marquise step-cut, 27.27-carat diamond, named Om, IGI said Wednesday. The stone, which has no color enhancement, was grown using chemical vapor deposition (CVD).
Along with Om, the IGI graded two additional lab-grown stones submitted by Greenlab, including Shivaya, an emerald-cut diamond weighing 20.24 carats, and Namah, a pear rose-cut, 15.16-carat polished. Greenlab plans to display the diamonds at the JCK Las Vegas show, it noted.
Previously, the largest known polished CVD diamond was a princess-cut, 16.41-carat, G-color, VVS2-clarity stone created by Shanghai Zhengshi Technology. The Gemological Institute of America (GIA) graded the stone in January.
At the time, the largest polished lab-grown diamond of any sort the GIA had examined was a cushion-cut, 20.23-carat, fancy-vivid-yellowish-orange, VS2-clarity diamond created using the High Pressure-High Temperature (HPHT) method in 2019.
The Gemological Institute of America (GIA) recently graded the largest known synthetic diamond to be created using chemical vapor deposition (CVD), it claimed Wednesday.
The stone, produced by Shanghai Zhengshi Technology, is a princess-cut, 16.41 carat, G colour, VVS2 clarity lab grown diamond. Spectroscopic readings the GIA performed confirmed the stone had no post growth treatments to improve the color, it noted.
“The first CVD diamond I examined in 2003 was a 0.23 carat pear shape, with clear brown colour,” said Wuyi Wang, GIA vice president of research and development. “This 16.41 carat laboratory grown diamond demonstrates the advances in CVD growth technology. This achievement has important implications for the many scientific and industrial applications for high quality laboratory grown diamonds.”
The previous record for a synthetic diamond grown using CVD was held by an emerald cut, 14.60 carat, F colour, VS2 clarity diamond, which was produced in India and graded by the International Gemological Institute (IGI). Meanwhile, the record for the largest lab grown diamond the GIA has examined was in 2019 for a cushion cut, 20.23 carat, fancy vivid yellowish orange, VS2 clarity stone made using High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT).
Mumbai’s Bharat Diamond Bourse (BDB) is on the verge of allowing lab-grown trading, with members due to vote on the matter next week.
The board of the world’s largest diamond hub has recommended the move, arguing that better detection and increased awareness have made it easier to segregate synthetic stones from natural ones. The poll will take place at the annual general meeting (AGM) at the BDB on December 28, according to the exchange’s annual report, which it released last week.
The bourse banned synthetics in 2015, but has been reconsidering the rule for more than two years and holding talks with India’s Natural Diamond Monitoring Committee on how to keep watch of the trade. The board received numerous requests for a meeting in which members could pass the amendment, BDB president Anoop Mehta told Rapaport News Monday.
“I think the vote result will be positive, because a lot of people want to diversify,” Mehta commented.
In the past, “you didn’t have many detection machines, and they were pretty expensive,” he added. “Detection…has gotten much more accessible and reasonable.”
However, companies won’t be able to start trading in synthetics immediately: They will have to apply for this right, Mehta explained. Companies active in both sectors must have detection equipment and keep natural and lab-grown stones in separate rooms, with clear markings on the door to indicate what’s inside. The BDB will cancel the membership of companies that flout the rules.
Meanwhile, the BDB board has recommended removing “natural” from its definition of diamonds, bringing it in line with industry standards, Mehta added. This will also be included in next week’s vote.
Mumbai’s Bharat Diamond Bourse (BDB) is on the verge of allowing lab-grown trading, with members due to vote on the matter next week.
The board of the world’s largest diamond hub has recommended the move, arguing that better detection and increased awareness have made it easier to segregate synthetic stones from natural ones. The poll will take place at the annual general meeting (AGM) at the BDB on December 28, according to the exchange’s annual report, which it released last week.
The bourse banned synthetics in 2015, but has been reconsidering the rule for more than two years and holding talks with India’s Natural Diamond Monitoring Committee on how to keep watch of the trade. The board received numerous requests for a meeting in which members could pass the amendment, BDB president Anoop Mehta told Rapaport News Monday.
“I think the vote result will be positive, because a lot of people want to diversify,” Mehta commented.
In the past, “you didn’t have many detection machines, and they were pretty expensive,” he added. “Detection…has gotten much more accessible and reasonable.”
However, companies won’t be able to start trading in synthetics immediately: They will have to apply for this right, Mehta explained. Companies active in both sectors must have detection equipment and keep natural and lab-grown stones in separate rooms, with clear markings on the door to indicate what’s inside. The BDB will cancel the membership of companies that flout the rules.
Meanwhile, the BDB board has recommended removing “natural” from its definition of diamonds, bringing it in line with industry standards, Mehta added. This will also be included in next week’s vote.
American Gem Society’s (AGS) grading lab will again evaluate laboratory-grown diamonds, a service it began in 2012 and then stopped in 2013 due to a lack of business.
The new AGS Laboratories lab-grown reports are the product of more than a year of research, development, and consultation with its board. For the moment, they will be available only in digital form on the lab’s Only My Diamond platform.
“We just saw there was a need for a different type of report, where we clearly articulate what a laboratory-grown diamond is,” says Jason Quick, executive director of AGS Laboratories. “We wanted to provide full transparency.”
The reports will include a note on the method used to grow the diamond, whether it’s HPHT (high pressure, high temperature) or CVD (chemical vapor deposition), along with consumer-friendly explanations of those methods.
Unlike GIA, AGS is using the standard scale to grade the diamonds but is adding the designation “LG.” So a VS2 will be called “LG-VS2.”
The report includes a note: “It is important to note that the color and clarity grades do not reflect the rarity of the laboratory-grown diamond, but rather the quality and consistency of the manufacturing process.”
Explains Quick: “Even most graders can’t tell the different between a D, E, and F with their naked eye, but there’s a difference in rarity, so we have those grades. We wanted to draw attention to the fact that here these grades means something different.”
It will also offer its standard AGS cut grade scale, with the top rating of AGS Ideal.
All graded diamonds will receive two non-optional two girdle inscriptions. One will say “laboratory-grown”; and the other will say “laboratory-grown” and be accompanied by the AGS report number.
The reports will also look different than its standard reports, so they can’t be confused with the natural diamond reports, and the words laboratory-grown appear at least 10 times on the report, Quick says.
American Gem Society’s (AGS) grading lab will again evaluate laboratory-grown diamonds, a service it began in 2012 and then stopped in 2013 due to a lack of business.
The new AGS Laboratories lab-grown reports are the product of more than a year of research, development, and consultation with its board. For the moment, they will be available only in digital form on the lab’s Only My Diamond platform.
“We just saw there was a need for a different type of report, where we clearly articulate what a laboratory-grown diamond is,” says Jason Quick, executive director of AGS Laboratories. “We wanted to provide full transparency.”
The reports will include a note on the method used to grow the diamond, whether it’s HPHT (high pressure, high temperature) or CVD (chemical vapor deposition), along with consumer-friendly explanations of those methods.
Unlike GIA, AGS is using the standard scale to grade the diamonds but is adding the designation “LG.” So a VS2 will be called “LG-VS2.”
The report includes a note: “It is important to note that the color and clarity grades do not reflect the rarity of the laboratory-grown diamond, but rather the quality and consistency of the manufacturing process.”
Explains Quick: “Even most graders can’t tell the different between a D, E, and F with their naked eye, but there’s a difference in rarity, so we have those grades. We wanted to draw attention to the fact that here these grades means something different.”
It will also offer its standard AGS cut grade scale, with the top rating of AGS Ideal.
All graded diamonds will receive two non-optional two girdle inscriptions. One will say “laboratory-grown”; and the other will say “laboratory-grown” and be accompanied by the AGS report number.
The reports will also look different than its standard reports, so they can’t be confused with the natural diamond reports, and the words laboratory-grown appear at least 10 times on the report, Quick says.
A court has awarded a limited victory to De Beers’ synthetic-diamond production unit in a patent dispute with Singapore-based grower IIa Technologies.
IIa infringed an Element Six patent related to diamond material that’s usable for lab-grown diamond jewelry and industrial applications, according to a High Court of Singapore judgment Friday. However, another Element Six patent for post-growth color treatment is invalid, judge Valerie Thean also ruled.
“We will continue to be vigilant for any other potential infringement of our [intellectual-property] rights around the globe,” Element Six CEO Walter Hühn said in a statement Friday. “We will defend our rights vigorously — just as any company would — because protecting our ability to get a full return on our investment in [research and development] is vital to our future.”
UK-based Element Six produces synthetic diamonds for De Beers’ lab-grown jewelry brand, Lightbox, and supplies diamond material for industrial and technological uses. The patent it successfully defended, SG 872, was relevant to optical applications such as infrared spectroscopy and high-power laser optics, as well as to the creation of stones for jewelry, De Beers explained.
IIa, which grows CVD goods for distributor and sister company Pure Grown Diamonds (PGD), must stop making, using, importing or maintaining possession of products that infringe patent SG 872, Thean ordered. She also called for the cancellation of Element Six’s patent SG 508, which relates to the annealing of chemical vapor deposition (CVD) diamonds.
“IIa Technologies has developed its proprietary process in the last 15 years, and is proud of the work we have done to bring lab-grown diamonds to the world,” Vishal Mehta, IIa’s CEO, said in a separate statement. “The current judgment will be considered in its entirety, and then the company will take necessary steps to protect its interests.”
The lawsuit, which Element Six filed in 2016, comes amid heightened patent-related legal activity in the synthetic-diamond sector. Last month, WD Lab Grown Diamonds sued six companies — including IIa and PGD — accusing them of infringing its patents for synthesis and treatment.
A court has awarded a limited victory to De Beers’ synthetic-diamond production unit in a patent dispute with Singapore-based grower IIa Technologies.
IIa infringed an Element Six patent related to diamond material that’s usable for lab-grown diamond jewelry and industrial applications, according to a High Court of Singapore judgment Friday. However, another Element Six patent for post-growth color treatment is invalid, judge Valerie Thean also ruled.
“We will continue to be vigilant for any other potential infringement of our [intellectual-property] rights around the globe,” Element Six CEO Walter Hühn said in a statement Friday. “We will defend our rights vigorously — just as any company would — because protecting our ability to get a full return on our investment in [research and development] is vital to our future.”
UK-based Element Six produces synthetic diamonds for De Beers’ lab-grown jewelry brand, Lightbox, and supplies diamond material for industrial and technological uses. The patent it successfully defended, SG 872, was relevant to optical applications such as infrared spectroscopy and high-power laser optics, as well as to the creation of stones for jewelry, De Beers explained.
IIa, which grows CVD goods for distributor and sister company Pure Grown Diamonds (PGD), must stop making, using, importing or maintaining possession of products that infringe patent SG 872, Thean ordered. She also called for the cancellation of Element Six’s patent SG 508, which relates to the annealing of chemical vapor deposition (CVD) diamonds.
“IIa Technologies has developed its proprietary process in the last 15 years, and is proud of the work we have done to bring lab-grown diamonds to the world,” Vishal Mehta, IIa’s CEO, said in a separate statement. “The current judgment will be considered in its entirety, and then the company will take necessary steps to protect its interests.”
The lawsuit, which Element Six filed in 2016, comes amid heightened patent-related legal activity in the synthetic-diamond sector. Last month, WD Lab Grown Diamonds sued six companies — including IIa and PGD — accusing them of infringing its patents for synthesis and treatment.
